QUOTES ON THE BLOOD AND HUMANITY OF CHRIST

QUOTES ON THE BLOOD

AND THE

HUMANITY OF CHRIST

These quotes are from a study I have made of the blood of Christ over the past few years. The first portion is to show scientifically that children do not get their blood from either parent, contrary to what some have erroneously declared. The rest is composed of quotes gleaned from my various reading on the subject.

—Wayne Camp—

Children Do Not Get Their Blood

From Either Parent

BLOOD TYPES

". . . offspring must have the same blood group as one or both of the parents. While it is never possible to prove parentage by a study of the blood types, it can be excluded in almost 45 percent of the cases by the utilization of the newer subdivisions of blood groups" (Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. IV, p. 112, 1967 ed.).

"Two parents of blood types A and B may have a child of blood type O. It is obvious that each of the parents also had a gene for type O (not detected by conventional tests) and that the child received the genes for type O rather than for A or B" (Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 2, P. 52, 1970 ed.).

"It has been established that the blood groups of children are determined by the genes passed on from the parents. The material that carries the inherited information is contained in the chromosomes. The chromosomes are present in all nucleated cells. In man there are two sets of 23 chromosomes in the ordinary cells, but in the reproductive cells only one set. The double number is restored at fertilization when the egg fuses with a sperm . . . A person having type AB blood has received an A determining gene from one parent and a B from the other . . . If a child receives a dominant gene from one parent this will be expressed in the child regardless of the contribution from the other parent . . ." (Ibid. Vol. 3, p. 804).

No blood is imparted to the human embryo at the time of conception. "The first blood corpuscles of the embryo are manufactured in the yolk sac" (Ibid., Vol. 17, p. 1138). Blood vessels begin to develop in the embryo about three weeks after conception. At about four weeks the heart begins to beat and blood is manufactured and begins to circulate. This blood was received from neither parent; it is manufactured in the bone marrow of the baby and has an individuality that is all its own. (Except in abnormal and undesirable circumstances, the blood of the mother never mixes with the blood of the child (Ibid.).

In more detail we learn, "Prenatally, in the developing organism, they (erythrocytes, or red blood cells) are first produced by the yolk sac and then by the liver in the second to fifth months. During the remaining months the red bone marrow develops and gradually takes over the role . . . The red blood cells, the white blood cells produced by the marrow, and the thrombocytes (platelets) develop from common primitive stem cells which differentiate to become either red or white blood cells, or platelets . . . The red bone marrow is a highly vascular hematopoietic tissue contained within the spaces of cancellous tissue. It produces erythrocytes (red blood cells), granular leukocytes (white blood cells) and thrombocytes (blood platelets)" (Medical-Surgical Nursing and Related Physiology, Jeannette E. Watson, R.N, M. Sc.N, Pp. 218, 899).

Each parent contributed 23 chromosomes which carried genes which will determine the blood type of the baby, but they did not carry blood. The baby may have the type of blood of the father are the mother, depending on the genes received. As was seen above, it may have a different type from either, because both may have contributed a recessive type (O is recessive) that was not evident in tests determining their blood type. Thus, a mother who is type A, but carries a recessive type O gene, and a Father who is type B, but also carries a recessive type O, may produce a child who has type O blood. This clearly proves that the blood does not come from either parent, but is manufactured as described above (Ibid. Vol. 8, p. 362).

"The blood type of a person is determined genetically; a gene received from each parent influences the type of blood of the offspring" (Medical-Surgical Nursing and Related Physiology, Jeannette E. Watson, R.N, M. Sc.N, Pp. 224-225).

In short, the conceived embryo receives no blood from either parent, only the genes which determine the type of its blood. Its first blood is manufactured in the yolk sac which is formed in the placenta after conception. Then, in the latter part of the third week or the early part of the fourth week, the heart begins to beat and blood is manufactured by the liver until about the fifth month. About the fifth month of pregnancy, the bones and bone marrow of the baby are developed enough that the blood is then manufactured in the bone marrow, as it is the rest of the persons life.

WAS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST HUMAN BLOOD?

"He assumed a complete human nature, spirit, soul, and body. Christ did not bring His human nature from heaven (as some have strangely and erroneously concluded from I Cor. 15:47), but it was composed of the very substance of His mother. In clothing Himself with flesh and blood, Christ also clothed Himself with human feelings, so He did not differ from His brethren, sin only excepted" (A. W. Pink, Gleanings in the Godhead, p. 147).

"And the incarnation of the Word or Son of God, is expressed and explained by his partaking of flesh and blood; and by a taking on him of the nature of man; or by an assumption of the human nature . . . The Son having agreed to it (the covenant of grace), being sent, came in the flesh, by the assumption of it; he took upon him the nature of the children, and partook of the same flesh and blood with them; he took upon him the form of a servant, and was found in fashion as a man, Heb. 2:14, 16. Phil. 2:7,8. The Holy Ghost had a very great concern in this affair; for that which was conceived in the Virgin was of the Holy Ghost, Matt. 1:20, not of his substance, nature, and essence; for then he would have been the Father of it, which he is never said to be; Christ, as man, was without Father, and so a proper antitype of Melchizedec, Heb. 7:3. Besides, the body of Christ would have been not human, but spiritual" (John Gill, Body of Divinity, p. 383).

"The nature of the Divine incarnation is here referred to in the words 'flesh and blood' (Heb. 2:14). That expression speaks of the frailty, dependency, and mortality of man. This is evident from the other passages where it occurs . . . In the words 'He also Himself likewise took part of the same' we have an affirmation concerning the reality of the Saviour's humanity. It is not merely that the Lord of glory appeared on earth in human form, but that He actually became 'flesh and blood,' subject to every human frailty so far as these are freed from sin" (A. W. Pink, Exposition of Hebrews, Pp. 132, 133).

"The Lord Christ, out of his inexpressible love, willingly submitted himself unto every condition of the children to be saved by him, and to every thing in every condition of them, sin only excepted. They being flesh and blood, which must be attended with many infirmities, and exposed unto all sorts of temptations and miseries, he himself would also partake of the same . . . It was only in flesh and blood, the substance and essence of human nature, and not in our personal infirmities, that the Lord Christ was made like unto us" (John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Vol. 3, Pp. 444-445).

Again Owen said, "The great foundation of the Church and all gospel faith is that He was made flesh, that He did partake of flesh and blood, even as did the children" (The Glory of Christ, Pp. 125-126).

"The pre-existent Son of God assumes human nature and takes to Himself human flesh and blood, a miracle that passes our limited understanding" (L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, P. 333).

"He will take human nature of the same lump with ours, and out of which ours is taken. So here in Heb. 2:14, 'He took part of the same; the same flesh and blood that we have . . . God hath made mankind all of one blood, that so they might love one another; and he will have this man that is to be our redeemer to be of the same blood, that is of seed, which is the blood of man concocted to an height, and therefore he is not only called a man but the 'Son of man,' (Matt. 17:12 . . . 'He took not the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham.' And the reason is given in the next verse here, that he might call us brethren, and not be ashamed of us. A brother is more than of the same nature, it notes one made out of the same blood. And God would have the same blood run in his veins that runs in ours. And this fitted him the more to be a redeemer, and to have right to do it by the Levitical law also, for it was proper to a brother to redeem, and a stranger could not: Lev. 25:25, 'If thy brother be waxen poor, and hath sold away some of his possession, and if any of his king come to redeem it, then shall he redeem that which his brother sold' . . . He partakes of flesh and blood, Heb. 2:17; and by flesh and blood are meant infirmities of all sorts, he excepts sin only . . . and so in his text he was 'partaker of flesh and blood,' that is, of the infirmities of man's nature, as well as of the nature; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. If he had not taken this frail flesh, he could not have died . . . As he took the nature of man, not of angels, so he took the seed of Abraham more eminently than of any other nation; although he had by some of his progenitors Gentiles' blood in him, yet he was of Abraham in a lineal descent" (Thomas Goodwin, Christ our Mediator, Pp. 56-61).

"The Lord Christ did and suffered many things in life and death, in His own person, by his human person, wherein the divine neither did nor suffered anything at all; although, in the doing of them, his person be denominated from that nature; so, "God purchased his church with his own blood" (John Owen, The Glory of Christ, P. 101).

Owen argued that the Divine nature suffered not in the scourging, the spitting, the slapping, the hanging on the tree, the shedding of his blood and the bruising of his body because the Divine nature could not suffer such things. These sufferings were in the human nature of Christ. It was his human body that was scourged and bruised; it was his human face into which they spewed their spit; it was his human beard that was plucked off his face; it was his human face they slapped; it was his human head that was crowned with thorns; it was his human body that was nailed to and hung upon that cruel cross; it was his human hands and feet that were pierced by those nails; it was his human side that was pierced; and it was his human blood that was shed. But, because of the union of the Divine nature with the human, those sufferings of the human nature are attributed to the Divine nature.

"We were born in sinful flesh, but he was born in the likeness of sinful flesh; we were born not only of flesh and blood [human seed]; but also of the will of man [human will], and the will of the flesh [sexual appetite]; but he was born only of flesh and blood [the seed of the virgin], not of the will of man [human will], nor of the will of the flesh [sexual appetite], but of God . . . The Divinity of Christ is as really united with the humanity as the soul with the body; so united that the sufferings of the human nature were the sufferings of that 'Person, and the dignity of the Divine was imputed to the human by reason of that unity of both in one Person; hence the blood of the human nature is said to be the blood of God' (Acts 20:28) (Charnocke, quoted by William G. T. Shedd, Shedd's Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 3, Pp. 393- 395).

"In Acts 20:28, the God man is called 'God,' and human characteristics are attributed: viz., blood, and the pains of death. 'Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.' the term 'God' here denotes incarnate God: a complex person, not an incomplex nature. In this use, the ecclesiastical phrase 'God's blood' is proper. so also is the expression, 'God the mighty Maker died;' because 'God' here designates the theanthropic person having two natures—God in the flesh—not one abstract divine nature . . . it would be proper to speak of he blood of Immanuel. But Immanuel means 'God with us.' Scripture speaks of 'the blood of God,' because God is united with a humanity that has blood" (Ibid., Vol. 2, Pp. 317-318).

"The strong argument against Docetism (the doctrine that the body of Christ was phantasmal and not real, RWC) was found in Heb. 2:14--'Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook of the same'" (A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, P. 670).

Strong favorably quotes Dorner when he says, "Three ideas are included in incarnation: (1) assumption of human nature on the part of the Logos (Heb. 2:14--partook of flesh and blood . . . ." (Ibid. P. 685-686).

Strong uses Heb. 2:14 several times to show the complete humanity of Christ--he partook of he same flesh and blood as his brethren.

"If we take the inspired volume for our guide, we shall be as fully satisfied, that Jesus Christ was a real and proper man, as that Moses or Paul was so. I mean now to be understood in the most obvious and perfect sense. I mean to say Christ was a man in every respect and in every degree. Everything bodily and mental which constitutes a perfect man, belonged to him. there is no danger of our going too far in ascribing real and proper manhood to Christ. And when we assert the manhood of Christ so strongly, we are in no danger of interfering with any other truth. Indeed our admitting the full and obvious sense of what the Scriptures declare respecting the humanity of Christ, will best prepare the way for rightly understanding what they declare respecting the higher points of his character.

"No valid objection against the perfect human nature of Christ can be derived from the circumstance of his miraculous conception. If Adam was a perfect man without either a human father or mother; Jesus surely might be a perfect man without a human father" (Leonard Woods, Wood’s Works, Vol. 1, P.284).

It is obvious that Woods believed that Christ was a human being, a real and perfect man, in every way. A complete and perfect man must have human blood to sustain the life in his human body as long as he is in the days of his flesh.

What is a human being? A man? Jesus Christ according to the flesh was made of the seed of David. Was David a man? Was Paul a man? When Scripture speaks of a person as a man it does not mean a body without a human mind. It does not mean a body without a human soul. It does not mean a body without human blood. It does not mean a human mind in a body of some other order of life. It does not mean a human soul in a body of some other species.

When Scripture calls Jesus a man it means that he has every attribute and member that is essential to being a man. Adam was a true and complete man before he sinned. He had a human mind, human soul, human blood, human emotions, etc. A sinful nature was not essential to his being a man. Though Christ was impeccable in his humanity; he was nevertheless every bit a man with a human body, a human soul, human blood, and human emotions. He hungered, he tired, he thirsted, he needed sleep. He grew in wisdom and stature, he suffered agony in his human soul and died shedding his human blood. As the man, Christ Jesus, the Holy Spirit was given to him to qualify him for his work. Isaiah wrote, "And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord; and shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord" (Isa. 11:2-3; See also Jn. 3:34).

QUOTES ON HUMANITY OF CHRIST

NOTE: THERE IS SOME REPETITION FROM THE QUOTES ON THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.

". . . the use of the word 'flesh' brings the Lord Jesus still closer to us, and shows that he took on him the very nature and substance of manhood: he did not merely assume the name and notion, and appearance, of manhood, but the reality: the weakness, the suffering, the mortality of our manhood he actually took into union with himself. He was not phantom, or apparition, but he had a human body and a human soul. 'The Word was made flesh.' when the Lord became bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh, his incarnation in a human body brought him far nearer to man than when he only abode within curtains, and occupied a tent in the midst of Israel.

"Moreover, it is to be noted that God does in the person of Jesus not merely dwell among men; but he hath joined himself unto men--the Word not only dwelt in flesh, but 'was made flesh.' It is impossible to use words which are exactly accurate to describe the wonderful incarnation of the Son of God in human flesh; but these words are used to show that our Lord is as truly and as really man as he is God. Not only does God dwell in the body of man; but our Lord Jesus is God and man in one person. He is not ashamed to speak of man as his brethren. 'Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same.' So that the Lord Jesus is one with us" (C. H. Spurgeon, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 31, Pp. 530- 531).

". . . he was made, that is, he took or assumed the true human nature into the unity of his divine person, with all its integral parts and essential properties; and so was made, or became a true and real man by that assumption . . . Christ took a complete and perfect human soul and body, with all and every faculty and member pertaining to it . . . He assumed our nature, as with all its integral parts, so with all its sinless infirmities . . . such as hunger, thirst, weariness, sweating, bleeding, mortality . . . Hence follows, as another excellent fruit of this union, the concourse and cooperation of each nature in his mediatorial works; for in them he acts according to both natures: the human nature doing what is human, namely, suffering, sweating, bleeding, dying; and his divine nature stamping all these with infinite value . . . as Priest, had he not been man, he could have shed no blood; and if not God, it had been of no adequate value for us . . . he is born, not of the blood of nobles, but of a poor woman in Israel . . . " (John Flavel, The Fountain of Life, Pp. 52, 54, 56, 57, 216).

John Flavel wrote, "The human nature was united to the second Person miraculously and extraordinarily, being supernaturally framed in the womb of the virgin by the overshadowing power of the Highest."

John Gill wrote, "And the incarnation of the Word or Son of God, is expressed and explained by his partaking of flesh and blood; and by a taking on him of the nature of man; or by an assumption of the human nature . . . The Son having agreed to it (the covenant of grace), being sent, came in the flesh, by the assumption of it; he took upon him the nature of the children, and partook of the same flesh and blood with them; he took upon him the form of a servant, and was found in fashion as a man, Heb. 2:14, 16. Phil. 2:7,8. The Holy Ghost had a very great concern in this affair; for that which was conceived in the Virgin was of the Holy Ghost, Matt. 1:20. not of his substance, nature, and essence; for then he would have been the Father of it, which he is never said to be; Christ, as man, was without Father, and so a proper antitype of Melchizedec, Heb. 7:3. Besides, the body of Christ would have been not human, but spiritual" (John Gill, Body of Divinity, p. 383).

Commenting on this verse, A. W. Pink wrote, "The nature of the Divine incarnation is here referred to in the words 'flesh and blood' (Heb. 2:14). That expression speaks of the frailty, dependency, and mortality of man. This is evident from the other passages where it occurs . . . In the words 'He also Himself likewise took part of the same' we have an affirmation concerning the reality of the Saviour's humanity. It is not merely that the Lord of glory appeared on earth in human form, but that He actually became 'flesh and blood,' subject to every human frailty so far as these are freed from sin" (A. W. Pink, Exposition of Hebrews, Pp. 132, 133).

On this verse John Owen wrote, "The Lord Christ, out of his inexpressible love, willingly submitted himself unto every condition of the children to be saved by him, and to every thing in every condition of them, sin only excepted. They being flesh and blood, which must be attended with many infirmities, and exposed unto all sorts of temptations and miseries, he himself would also partake of the same . . . It was only in flesh and blood, the substance and essence of human nature, and not in our personal infirmities, that the Lord Christ was made like unto us" (John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Vol. 3, Pp. 444-445).

Berkhof said, "The pre-existent Son of God assumes human nature and takes to Himself human flesh and blood, a miracle that passes our limited understanding" (L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, P. 333).

T. P. Simmons said, "Christ's body and human nature were in all respects like our own, except that there was no taint of sin in Him. He was the flesh of our flesh and blood of our blood" (A Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine, P. 86).

"By a true body," wrote Charles Hodge, "is meant a material body, composed of flesh and blood, everything essential like the bodies of ordinary men. It was not a phantasm, or mere semblance of body. Nor was it fashioned out of any heavenly or ethereal substance. This is plain because He was born of a woman. He was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary, nourished of her substance so as to be consubstantial with her. His body increased in stature, passing through the ordinary process of development from infancy to manhood. It was subject to all the affections of a human body. It was subject to pain, pleasure, hunger, thirst, fatigue, suffering, and death. It could be seen, felt, and handled. The Scriptures declare it to have been flesh and blood" (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, P. 381).

Again Hodge, while discussing The Intrinsic Worth of Christ's Satisfaction said, "This is precisely what the Apostle, in Hebrews 2:14, teachers, when he says that He who was the Son of God, who made heaven and earth, who upholds all things by the word of his mouth, and who is immutable and eternal, assumed our nature (flesh and blood) in order that He might die, and by death destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil. Christ is but one person, with two distinct natures, and therefore whatever can be predicated of either nature may be predicated of the person. An indignity offered to a man's body is offered to himself. If this principle be not correct there was no greater crime in the crucifixion of Christ than in unjustly inflicting death on an ordinary man. The principle in question, however, is clearly recognized in Scripture, and therefore the sacred writers do not hesitate to say that God purchased the Church with his blood; and that the Lord of glory was crucified (ibid. P. 483).

Commenting on Heb. 2:14, J. M. Pendleton said, "We could not be taught more clearly than in this verse that the Son of God assumed the nature of those he came to redeem. He partook of their "flesh and blood" (Christian Doctrines. Pp. 200-201).

J. P. Boyce wrote, "These heresies (that Christ did not have a human body) soon disappeared, and it is now no longer disputed that Christ had a true human body composed of bones, flesh, and blood, as are the bodies of other men" (Abstract of Systematic Theology, P. 277).

Commenting on Heb. 2:14, William R. Newell wrote, "The first step of infinite condescension is, He took part in blood and flesh . . . Thus our Lord partook of blood and flesh . . . in like manner as we: how marvelous!" (Hebrews, P. 59).

Commenting on Heb. 2:14-17, I. M. Haldeman said, "From this unequivocal Scripture we learn that He who was the eternal Word of God, personally, actively and in individual responsibility assumed for Himself a human nature of flesh and blood" (The Tabernacle, Priesthood, and Offerings, P. 21).

On this same verse, Thomas Goodwin wrote, "He will take human nature of the same lump with ours, and out of which ours is taken. So here in Heb. 2:14, 'He took part of the same; the same flesh and blood that we have . . . God hath made mankind all of one blood, that so they might love one another; and he will have this man that is to be our redeemer to be of the same blood, that is of seed, which is the blood of man concocted to an height, and therefore he is not only called a man but the 'Son of man,' (Matt. 17:12 . . . 'He took not the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham.' And the reason is given in the next verse here, that he might call us brethren, and not be ashamed of us. A brother is more than of the same nature, it notes one made out of the same blood. And God would have the same blood run in his veins that runs in ours. And this fitted him the more to be a redeemer, and to have right to do it by the Levitical law also, for it was proper to a brother to redeem, and a stranger could not: Lev. 25:25, 'If thy brother be waxen poor, and hath sold away some of his possession, and if any of his kin come to redeem it, then shall he redeem that which his brother sold' . . . He partakes of flesh and blood, Heb. 2:17; and by flesh and blood are meant infirmities of all sorts, he excepts sin only . . . and so in this text he was 'partaker of flesh and blood,' that is, of the infirmities of man's nature, as well as of the nature; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. If he had not taken this frail flesh, he could not have died . . . As he took the nature of man, not of angels, so he took the seed of Abraham more eminently than of any other nation; although he had by some of his progenitors Gentiles' blood in him, yet he was of Abraham in a lineal descent" (Thomas Goodwin, Christ our Mediator, Pp. 56-61).

Thomas Watson, in his Body of Divinity, asks a question which shows that he believed the blood of Christ to be human blood. He asked, "How could Christ be made of the flesh and blood of a virgin, and yet be without sin?" (P. 193). I am not certain what Watson had in mind when he spoke of the "blood of a virgin" but it is very obvious from his question that he held the blood of Christ to be human blood.

Along this same line A. H. Strong said, "The strong argument against Docetism (the doctrine that the body of Christ was phantasmal and not real, RWC) was found in Heb. 2:14--'Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook of the same'" (A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, P. 670).

Strong uses Heb. 2:14 several times to show the complete humanity of Christ--he partook of the same flesh and blood as his brethren.

Consider the words of William Shedd on this matter, "We were born in sinful flesh, but he was born in the likeness of sinful flesh; we were born not only of flesh and blood [human seed]; but also of the will of man [human will], and the will of the flesh [sexual appetite]; but he was born only of flesh and blood [the seed of the virgin], not of the will of man [human will], nor of the will of the flesh [sexual appetite], but of God . . . The Divinity of Christ is as really united with the humanity as the soul with the body; so united that the sufferings of the human nature were the sufferings of that 'Person, and the dignity of the Divine was imputed to the human by reason of that unity of both in one Person; hence the blood of the human nature is said to be the blood of God' (Acts 20:28) (Charnocke, quoted by William G. T. Shedd, Shedd's Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 3, Pp. 393-395).

Again, Shedd said, "In Acts 20:28, the God man is called 'God,' and human characteristics are attributed: viz., blood, and the pains of death. 'Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.' the term 'God' here denotes incarnate God: a complex person, not an incomplex nature. In this used, the ecclesiastical phrase 'God's blood' is proper. so also is the expression, 'God the mighty Maker died;' because 'God' here designates the theanthropic person having two natures --God in the flesh--not one abstract divine nature . . . it would be proper to speak of the blood of Emanuel. But Emanuel means 'God with us.' Scripture speaks of 'the blood of God,' because God is united with a humanity that has blood" (Ibid., Vol. 2, Pp. 317-318).

A LOOK AT THE QUESTION SCIENTIFICALLY

No blood is imparted to the human embryo at the time of conception. "The first blood corpuscles of the embryo are manufactured in the yolk sac" (Ibid., Vol. 17, p. 1138). Blood vessels begin to develop in the embryo about three weeks after conception. At about four weeks the heart begins to beat and blood is manufactured by the liver and begins to circulate. This blood was received from neither parent; it was first manufactured in the yolk sac, then by the liver, and beginning about the fifth month, it is manufactured in the bone marrow of the baby and has an individuality that is all its own. (Except in abnormal and undesirable circumstances, the blood of the mother never mixes with the blood of the child (Ibid.).

In more detail we learn, "Prenatally, in the developing organism, they (erythrocytes, or red blood cells) are first produced by the yolk sac and then by the liver in the second to fifth months. During the remaining months the red bone marrow develops and gradually takes over the role . . . The red blood cells, the white blood cells produced by the marrow and the thrombocytes (platelets) develop from common primitive stem cells which differentiate to become either red or white blood cells, or platelets . . . The red bone marrow is a highly vascular hematopoietic tissue contained within the spaces of cancellous tissue. It produces erythrocytes (red blood cells), granular leukocytes (white blood cells) and thrombocytes (blood platelets)" (Medical- Surgical Nursing and Related Physiology, Jeannette E. Watson, R.N, M. Sc.N, Pp. 218, 899).

Each parent contributed 23 chromosomes which carried genes which will determine the blood type of the baby, but they did not carry blood. The baby may have the type of blood of the father or the mother, depending on the genes received. As was seen above, it may have a different type from either, because both may have contributed a recessive type (O is recessive) that was not evident in tests determining their blood type. Thus, a mother who is type A, but carries a recessive type O gene, and a Father who is type B, but also carries a recessive type O, may produce a child who has type O blood. This clearly proves that the blood does not come from either parent, but is manufactured as described above. (Ibid. Vol. 8, p. 362).

In short, the conceived embryo receives no blood from either parent, only the genes which determine the type of its blood. Its first blood is manufactured in the yolk sac which is formed in the placenta after conception. Then, in the latter part of the third week, or the early part of the fourth week, the heart begins to beat and blood is manufactured by the liver from the second until about the fifth month. About the fifth month of pregnancy, the bones and bone marrow of the baby are developed enough that the blood is then manufactured in the bone marrow, as it is the rest of the persons life.

Let me repeat one more time, the baby gets its blood from neither parent. It has blood that is uniquely its own. Thus, even, if as some suppose, the Holy Spirit had planted a seed in the womb of Mary that caused her to conceive, he would not have imparted blood, in that act. The blood of Jesus Christ was uniquely his own blood, not the blood of his Heavenly Father nor the blood of his earthly mother Mary.

THE TRUE AND COMPLETE HUMANITY OF CHRIST

As A. W. Pink said, " The humanity of Christ was unique. History supplies no analogy, nor can His humanity be illustrated by anything in nature. It is incomparable, not only to our fallen human nature, but also to unfallen Adam's. The Lord Jesus was born into circumstances totally different from those which Adam first found himself, but the sins and griefs of His people were on Him from the first. His humanity was produced neither by natural generation (as is ours), nor by special creation, as was Adam's. The humanity of Christ was, under the immediate agency of the Holy Spirit, supernaturally "conceived" (Is 7:14) of the virgin. It was "prepared" of God (Heb. 10:5); yet "made of a woman" (Gal. 4:4) . . . He assumed a complete human nature, spirit, soul, and body. Christ did not bring His human nature from heaven (as some have strangely and erroneously concluded from I Cor. 15:47), but it was composed of the very substance of His mother. In clothing Himself with flesh and blood, Christ also clothed Himself with human feelings, so He did not differ from His brethren, sin only excepted . . . While we always contend that Christ is God, let us never lose the conviction He is most certainly a man. He is not God humanized, nor a human deified; but , as to His Godhead, pure Godhead, equal and coeternal with the Father; as to His manhood, perfect manhood, made in all respects like the rest of mankind, sin alone excepted. His humanity is real, for He was born. He lay in the virgin's womb, and in due time was born. The gate by which we enter our first life he passed through also. He was not created, nor transformed, but His humanity was begotten and born. As He was Born, so in the circumstances of His birth, He is completely human. He was as weak and feeble as any other babe. He is not even royal, but human. Those born in marble halls of old were wrapped in purple garments, and were thought by the common people to be a superior race. But this Babe was wrapped in swaddling clothes and had a manger for a cradle, so that the true humanity of His being would come out" (A. W. Pink, Gleanings in the Godhead, p. 147).

One writer said, ". . . he was made, that is, he took or assumed the true human nature into the unity of his divine person, with all its integral parts and essential properties; and so was made, or became a true and real man by that assumption . . . Christ took a complete and perfect human soul and body, with all and every faculty and member pertaining to it . . . He assumed our nature, as with all its integral parts, so with all its sinless infirmities . . . such as hunger, thirst, weariness, sweating, bleeding, mortality . . . Hence follows, as another excellent fruit of this union, the concourse and cooperation of each nature in his mediatorial works; for in them he acts according to both natures: the human nature doing what is human, namely, suffering, sweating, bleeding, dying; and his divine nature stamping all these with infinite value . . . as Priest, had he not been man, he could have shed no blood; and if not God, it had been of no adequate value for us . . . he is born, not of the blood of nobles, but of a poor woman in Israel . . . " (John Flavel, The Fountain of Life, Pp. 52, 54, 56, 57, 216).

J. C. PHILPOT

That the eternal Son of God should take into intimate and indissoluble union with his divine Person the flesh and blood of the children, that in that nature he might manifest the riches of the sovereign grace, the heights and depths of the everlasting love, and the fullness of the uncreated glory of a Triune Jehovah, has been from all eternity the determinate counsel and purpose of the great and glorious self-existent I AM; and all creation, all providence, and all events and circumstances of time and space were originally and definitely arranged to carry into execution this original plan."

"We must hold fast, then, to this vital truth, that it was real flesh and blood, though holy flesh and blood, that the Son of God assumed in the womb and offered on the tree." C. H. SPURGEON

Of the blood of Jesus Christ Spurgeon said, "It was the blood of man, for he was man like ourselves; but the divinity was so allied with the manhood, that the blood derived efficacy from it. (Sermon on the Blood).

MILBURN COCKRELL

"So far as I am able to read in Scripture the blood of Christ was human blood, but the union of the two natures was so close that it was called in Acts 20:28 the blood of God (The Berea Baptist Banner, July 5, 1993).

C H SPURGEON (DEVOTIONS)

"I have exalted one chosen out of the people." Psalm 89:19.

Why was Christ chosen out of the people? Speak, my heart, for heart-thoughts are best. Was it not that he might be able to be our brother, in the blest tie of kindred blood? Oh, what relationship there is between Christ and the believer! The believer can say, "I have a Brother in heaven; I may be poor, but I have a Brother who is rich, and is a King, and will he suffer me to want while he is on his throne? Oh, no! He loves me; he is my Brother." Believer, wear this blessed thought, like a necklace of diamonds, around the neck of thy memory; put it, as a golden ring, on the finger of recollection, and use it as the King’s own seal, stamping the petitions of thy faith with confidence of success. He is a brother born for adversity, treat him as such.

Christ was also chosen out of the people that he might know our wants and sympathize with us. "He was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin." In all our sorrows we have his sympathy. Temptation, pain, disappointment, weakness, weariness, poverty-he knows them all, for he has felt all. Remember this, Christian, and let it comfort thee. However difficult and painful thy road, it is marked by the footsteps of thy Saviour; and even when thou reachest the dark valley of the shadow of death, and the deep waters of the swelling Jordan, thou wilt find his footprints there. In all places whithersoever we go, he has been our forerunner; each burden we have to carry, has once been laid on the shoulders of Immanuel. "His way was much rougher and darker than mine. Did Christ, my Lord, suffer, and shall I repine?" Take courage! Royal feet have left a blood-red track upon the road, and consecrated the thorny path for ever."

Click to return to Central Baptist Church HomePage

Click to go to Table of Contents of This Site

Send E-mail to rwcamp@gpp-5grace.com

Last Modified Saturday, July 30, 2011 .

web counter